Judgment : 1. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease in respect of Survey Field Nos.276/5, 285/8, 309/1 at Periyasooragai Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District to an extent of 1.39.5 Hectares, for a period of 20 years, on 06.04.1998. 2. Earlier, the Government passed G.O.(D)No.87, Industries Department, dated 26.04.2004 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of Mining Lease in respect of S.F.Nos.276/5, 285/8, 309/1 since those lands are classified as Path poramboke. In paragraph 2 of the said Government Order, it has been observed as follows :- "2. The District Collector, Salem has stated that lands in S.F.Nos.276/5, 285/8, 309/1 are classified as path poramoke in Village accounts and there is insufficient area to leave 50 Metres safety distance from the tar-road as it is used by the Public as pathway and buses are passing through the road. A telephonen line, and electric lines are traversing the area and hence the land is not available for lease. 3. Challenging the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14871 of 2005. This Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 30.01.2008 confirming the order of the Government issued in G.O.(D)No.87 dated 26.04.2004. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer made recommendations dated 01.09.2007 and 07.09.2007 respectively for grant of mining lease in respect of Survey numbers 276/5 and 285/8 and prayed that the Court may grant suitable directions to the Government to grant lease. However, the request of the petitioner in this regard was rejected in the said writ petition. In paragraph 15 of the order, it was stated that it is always open to the petitioner to seek for appropriate remedy, on the basis of recommendation/suggestion made by the Tahsildar of Mettur. 4. Thereafter, the Deputy Director, Department of Mining and Geology, Salem, the second respondent herein passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2008 stating that already the Government had passed G.O.(D) No.87 dated 26.04.2004 rejecting the request of the petitioner and therefore, the request of the petitioner to grant lease cannot be considered. 5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 25.09.2008 passed by the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondent to grant licence for S.No.276/5 and S.No.285/8, Periyasooragai Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 6. 5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 25.09.2008 passed by the second respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondent to grant licence for S.No.276/5 and S.No.285/8, Periyasooragai Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it has been observed that the areas applied for lease in S.No.276/5 (0.40.5 hectare), S.No.285/8 (0.83.5 hectare) and S.No.309/1 (0.15.0 hectare) are classified as "Pathway" Government Poramboke lands. There is insufficient area to leave 50 meters safety distance from the tar-road as it is used by the public as pathway and buses are passing through the road. A telephone line and electric lines are passing through the area and hence the area is not available for grant of lease. Hence, the Government passed G.O(D)No.87 Industries Department, dated 26.04.2004 rejecting the application of the petitioner for mining lease. It is also stated that the petitioner filed a writ petition questioning the aforesaid Government Order and the same was also rejected by this Court on 30.01.2008. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that since the Tahsildar has sent a report dated 01.09.2007 recommending to grant mining lease in respect of S.No.276/5 and S.No.285/8, the second respondent is not correct in rejecting the request for grant of lease. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the order dated 07.08.2008 of the Commissioner, Geology and Mining referred to in the impugned order was not furnished to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 16 SCC 276 [Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others]. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner has been informed by the second respondent that the Government have already rejected the request for grant of mining lease in G.O(D)No.87 and the same was also upheld by this Court and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 11. The impugned order dated 25.09.2008 of the second respondent is extracted hereunder :- "TAMIL” 12. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 11. The impugned order dated 25.09.2008 of the second respondent is extracted hereunder :- "TAMIL” 12. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are twofold. It is submitted that there were recommendations by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 01.09.2007 and 07.09.2007 respectively to grant mining lease in respect of S.No.276/5 and S.No.285/8. But the report dated 01.09.2007 of the Tahsildar alone is enclosed in the typed set of papers. 13. I have perused the report dated 01.09.2007 of the Tahsildar. Paragraph 2 of the report dated 01.09.2007 is extracted hereunder :- "TAMIL” 14. I am not able to understand as to how the Tahsildar would recommend for giving mining lease after recording that cremation ground was in S.F.No.285/8 and people are residing near to S.F.No.285/8. The Tahsilar also recorded that low tension electric line is traversing in S.F.No.276/5 and a telephone line is traversing through the Panchayat road. But still the Tahsildar recommended for granting lease in respect of S.F. Nos.276/5 and 285/8. 15. It is necessary to refer to the last two paragraphs in the report of the Tahsildar dated 01.09.2007, which are extracted hereunder :- "TAMIL” 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 2 of the G.O.(D)No.87, dated 26.04.2004, which reads as follows :- "2. The District Collector, Salem has stated that lands in S.F.Nos.276/5, 285/8, 309/1 are classified as path poramoke in Village accounts and there is insufficient area to leave 50 Metres safety distance from the tar-road as it is used by the Public as pathway and buses are passing through the road. A telephonen line, and electric lines are traversing the area and hence the land is not available for lease." 17. The report of the Tahsildar relied on by the petitioner contains the same facts that are found in paragraph 2 of the Government Order in G.O.(D)No.87 dated 26.04.2004. The said Government Order was upheld by this Court in W.P.No.14871 of 2005 dated 30.01.2008 when the petitioner questioned the said Government Order. 18. When this Court recorded a categorical finding giving various reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the time of hearing that there were recommendations of Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of mining lease. 18. When this Court recorded a categorical finding giving various reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the time of hearing that there were recommendations of Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of mining lease. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order dated 30.01.2008 are extracted hereunder :- "14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any prima facie. However, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, his letters dated 01.09.2007 and 07.09.2007, has made certain suggestions to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur District, for grant of mining lease in respect of survey numbers 276/5, 285/8 in the above said village and prayed that this court may grant suitable directions to the first respondent to grant lease. 15. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered in this writ petition and it is always open to the petitioner to seek for appropriate remedy, on the basis of recommendation/suggestion made by the Tahsildar of Mettur." 19. This Court refused to issue direction as sought for by the petitioner in those two paragraphs. It is true that this Court has observed that it is open to the petitioner to seek for appropriate remedy on the basis of recommendation. But the recommendation of the Tahsildar, Mettur was not dealt by this Court in the said order. I have gone into the report dated 01.09.2007 of the Tahsildar. In my view, it is devoid of merits and the same is contrary to G.O.(D)No.87 dated 26.04.2004 as well as the order of this Court dated 30.01.2008 made in W.P.No.14871 of 2005. 20. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that the impugned order dated 25.09.2008 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since the order dated 07.08.2008 of the Commissioner, Department of Mining and Geology referred to therein was not furnished to him. 21. In my considered view, the said submission has no merit. The impugned order extracted above nowhere refers to the order dated 07.08.2008 of the Commissioner. In fact the order refers to only G.O.(D)No.87 dated 26.04.2004 and it was observed that the Government have already rejected the request of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner cannot seek for grant of lease. In my considered view, the said submission has no merit. The impugned order extracted above nowhere refers to the order dated 07.08.2008 of the Commissioner. In fact the order refers to only G.O.(D)No.87 dated 26.04.2004 and it was observed that the Government have already rejected the request of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner cannot seek for grant of lease. The details that were stated in the order dated 25.09.2008 is just reproducing paragraph 2 of the Government Order in G.O.(D)87, which has been upheld by this Court. Hence, the petitioner cannot simply say that the order dated 07.08.2008 of the Commissioner was not furnished to him and the same was relied on by the second respondent to pass the order. The impugned order does not reveal that the order dated 07.08.2008 of the Commissioner was taken into account for passing the order. 22. The decision relied on by the petitioner reported in (2008) 16 SCC 276 has no application to the facts of this case. The petitioner having not questioned the order of this Court dated 30.01.2008 made in W.P.No.14871 of 2005 in the manner known to law, cannot now make a claim that the impugned order dated 25.09.2008 of the second respondent is bad, when the impugned order is simply based on G.O.(D) No.87 Industries Department, dated 26.04.2004. 23. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.